Parental Abduction on Feb 1, 1995, by Nilda M. Keene, mother, of minors James Rogers Keene, 7, and Grace Josephine Keene, 10, from the home of their father, James Jefferson Keene

by James J. Keene, Ph.D., victim parent

REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS UNDER OATH

Jan. 24. 1997 CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, MOCION SOBRE VISTA SENALADA

Jan. 24, 1997 CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, DEPOSICION DE NILDA M. DAVIS FLORES, by Lcdo. William Ramirez and Lcda. Nora Vargas Acosta, 54 pages (first of two -- please see Feb 20, 1997, 113 pages).

During our drive back to San Juan from Guayama, Vargas & Ramirez expressed amazement at Nilda's behavior in the deposition. Experienced attorneys in civil-rights and family law, among other fields, Vargas & Ramirez commented on the strong "controlling" features in Nilda's behavior. At the beginning of these depositions, she simply refused to answer any question on the topic. Vargas and Ramirez patiently explained to Nilda and her attorney the purpose of the deposition and finally, Nilda's attorney was able to pursuade Nilda to continue. At another point, Nilda simply wanted to stop the deposition entirely because "I want to talk with Jim." I was amazed, also.

MORE UNRULY BEHAVIOR: HOSPITAL

Jan. 27, 1997 Admitted the afternoon before to the Hospital Universitario of the Recinto de Ciencias Medicas, of the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, where I had been a tenured faculty member in the Department of Physiology, I had indirect inguinal hernia repair surgery, performed in an outstanding manner by some of my own previous students at the Medical School. The surgery was at 8:00 AM.

Shortly after when I was recovering from the spinal anesthesia which resulted in sleep -- I was tired and very relaxed and confident with these surgeons, I was returned to my room, shared with another patient with at least two family visitors at his bedside. Laying there naked with just the surgical gown, Nilda entered the room with the head nurse of the floor. I later learned that in making arrangements for a court hearing, my attorneys had "let slip" that I was already in Puerto Rico in a hospital. Nilda being a MD from Puerto Rico, apparently quickly found out my location and arrived at the San Juan hospital -- about a one hour drive from Patillas, PR.

Nilda said, "I have brought the children to see you." "Great," I said, "where are they?" "They are in the car with Ana." "Wonderful, bring them up." "I can't do that, Jim, I see now you are being violent." Remember, four witnesses are present in the room -- one being the head nurse for the floor. I am still weak from the anesthesia and just laying there. "What do you mean?" I asked. To close the episode, Nilda simply exits muttering some complaint about my "violent" behavior to the nurse.

Concept: Around this period of time, I had become concerned for my personal safety in Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, I was the person and the father that the Davis-Flores clan did not want to exist. Further, I had factual information about their kidnapping venture.

Hence, I did not feel safe in the hospital bed once I knew that the Davis-Flores gang knew my location. The wonderful surgeon had asked me to stay in the hospital for at least 24 hours (one more night) because he was going to check on me both during the day and the next morning.

Nonetheless, I decided to leave immediately. I removed the venous drip needle in my vein and taped to my arm. I discovered my legs would hardly move from the remaining lower spinal anesthesia. I could, however, manuver on the bed to reach the closet with my clothes. I managed to dress -- shoes and everything -- helping my legs into the pants. I grabbed my little bag with passport and documents and soon found I could hobble to the door of the room, with support from the other bed and walls. I made it to the head nurse desk, who was rather unhappy about my leaving, although she managed to find my prescription left by the doctor for pain killers. She had me sign various documents and I was out of there, less than two hours after the surgery itself.

Returning to my guest house room, quite a distance from the hospital, I called Ana's phone number to try to speak with my children, because I considered this episode to be another example of her child abuse. Here is their story: Both children told me that, yes, they had drove to San Juan in the morming, but "mommie" would not let us go with her to see you. She said that she wanted to see you first. Then, she came down and said you were "being violent and throwing things around the hospital room" so we drove back here.

I tried to describe the true circumstances to my kids in that phone call. This, dear reader, is just one example of what I have had to deal with. Incidentally, in all of my trips to Puerto Rico, never once were my children "voluntarily" brought to see me at any of the court hearings, before or after, or on the two deposition dates. Once the children "rebelled" and "demanded" to see me, however, and were brought for a brief meeting in the public square in Guayama, which I describe elsewhere.

MORE UNRULY BEHAVIOR: COURTROOM

Jan. 28, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, MOCION BAJO LA REGLA 34 Y SOLICITANDO SANCIONES, submitted by Vargas & Ramirez. It states(my translation):

3. Once the desposition began, the demandante (Nilda), by instructions from her attorney, refused to participate in the desposition.
4. The defendant, through his attorneys, provided pertinent advice on the obligation to answer our questions and cooperate with the deposition process. Nonetheless, (Nilda) reiterated her position to not cooperate with the process.
5. In addition, (Nilda) was advised about the expenses incurred by (James), and was reminded that the deposition was cited by mutual agreement between the parties and of our right to ask for the imposition of sanctions. (Nilda) answered that to incur expenses of the desposition would not represent any inconvenience (see exhibit A).
6. That the efforts of the defendant (James) to realize discovery of facts (preuba) has been frustrated by the "dilatorias" tactics of (Nilda) that have not permitted its commencement, stating the condition before beginning the process, that the parties talk about the possibility of reconciliation.

My translation is not good here. What happened is that Nilda "wanted to talk privately with me" instead of answering any questions, and this, in a lawsuit that she initiated to further her kidnapping plan.

Further points include a summary of previous events in the case, including a prior posponement of the deposition of Nilda on Nov. 20, 1996, which was agreed to, but then posponed by Nilda.

14. Acting in a frightening or intimidating (temeraria) manner, (Nilda) pretends to impede the discovery process by (James), making him incur expenses needlessly...
15. We include a copy of the transcript of this failed taking of deposition.
Therefore, very respectfully, we ask...
(1) Payment of expenses incurred by (James) in the taking of deposition and attorney fees.
(2) Order the taking of the deposition or that the allegations presented by (Nilda) be eliminated, desisting from the divorce action.

Jan. 29, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court. Little more than 48 hours after my surgery, I attended a hearing on this case. During this hearing, my attorneys noted that "Dr. Keene is experiencing some discomfort from surgery on Monday." Immediately, Nilda jumped up, to everyone's surprise, and shouted to the Judge that my lawyers were lying because there was no surgery. Note that Nilda came to my room in the hospital with the head nurse just two days before. I stood up and offered to the Judge that I could lower my pants and show her (the Judge) my stitches and documents from the surgeons. The Judge said quietly, "That will not be necessary" as Nilda's attorney attempted to calm her unruly client.

Feb. 14, 1997. Letter to my surgeons, Drs. Bayron Velez, Mendez and Vila, which said in part:

I was hoping to see you post-surgery on Monday. But about one half hour after I was returned to my hospital room, a disreputable person came to my room. This person has filed a nonsense lawsuit against me for which there was a court hearing on the same Wednesday of that week. I needed to sleep at that time, but court-related documents were in my little bag by the bed. This person is dishonest and appearing in my room at that time was totally inappropriate. In short, I felt that I could not safely sleep in the presence of that person and that I had no choice except to check out of the hospital immediately.
With these circumstances, I hope you are not upset with me for checking out before you could check on me post-op...

Feb. 19, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, MOCION INFORMATIVA, by Vargas & Ramirez, about the history and inappropriate behavior of Nilda in the deposition process.

PERJURY

Feb. 20, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, DEPOSICION DE NILDA M. DAVIS FLORES, by Lcdo. William Ramirez, 113 pages (second of two -- please see Jan. 24, 1997).

The major point is the numerous acts of perjury committed by Nilda during these depositions. Later I started to make notes in the transcript, but the number of demonstrably false statements was enormous. To date, we still have no complete count on the actual number. Were the acts of perjury on almost every page of these depositions a motive to "fix" the outcome in the Guayama court so I would never have a chance to present evidence?

Although Nilda had the right to depose me, it was never done. I would have simply told the truth and itemized facts, something that would not help Nilda's cause at all.

If the depositions of Nilda were submitted to the court, then the court would have had over 160 pages of falsehoods and nothing from me, since I was not allowed to present evidence or call witnesses, being denied basic constitutional rights.

Feb. 20, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, MOCION EN CUMPLIMIENTO A ORDEN Y EN APOYO A QUE ESTE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL SE ABSTENGA DE SOLVER LO RELACIONADO A LA CUSTODIA DE MENORES (4 pages), by Vargas & Ramirez, who argue that this court should not rule on the child custody issue.

Feb. 25, 1997. Notes written about case and disussed with Vargas & Ramirez.

1. change in venue.
2. no testimony, statements of children may be used.
3. real primary-care giver, Ana Davis, must testify.
4. divorce case of Nilda is only to fool court into endorsement of kidnapping and child abuse and denial of parental rights.
5. any payments by victim parent would amount to extortion and acceptance of kidnapping and child abuse and denial of custodial rights.
6. Nilda has committed perjury.
7. children not receiving proper education.
8. children [have written, but] have never _replied_ to my letters, even though Grace says she has "pen pals."
9. the children are isolated from other children with whom they can compare and realize their wrongful taking, detention and concealment from their only sane and responsible and functioning parent.
10. it is a serious embarrassment to U.S. that U.S. courts would sanction, by acts of commission and/or omission, international child abduction.

Mar. 13, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, RESOLUCION INTERLOCUTORIA (21 pages), which apparently is the final statement of this court. Notice that the court made a ruling before I had any chance to present evidence and witnesses.

Mar. 13, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, SENTENCIA, which gives custody and "patria potestad", whatever that is, of the kidnapped children to Nilda. Further, it states (my translation): "Father-child relations will be during vacations of (James) in Puerto Rico and (James) will not be able to take the children out of the jurisdiction." Golly gee, it sounds like I was the kidnapper. Good to know where I must vacation. So the joke of this court is written by itself. Kidnappers take note. Abduction, perjury and child abuse are OK in Guayama, PR, and whoever you abduct the children from will have no say and no opportunity to present evidence. Neat scam.

Mar. 18, 1997. Letter from Vargas & Ramirez, summary of what is stated in the social report submitted to the court by court appointed social worker, etc. More on this later.

Apr. 4, 1997. Board of Medical Examiners of PR interview Drs. Migdoel Vazquez and Nilda Keene concerning my formal complaint about Dr. Vazquez. I was not informed of this hearing, as I had requested, and therefore could not present evidence. [Please see Apr. 30 below.]

Apr. 7, 1997. Letter to Vargas & Ramirez, stating in part: "From what he [William Ramirez] said previously I would _not_ be allowed to present evidence, so no need to come [to Puerto Rico] for April 9 court date, when presumably divorce will be granted." Nilda had changed her case from "trato cruel" [cruel treatment] to "separacion" [separation]. Obviously, she had no evidence for cruel treatment, since there was none.

In a phone call, I indicated to Vargas & Ramirez to tell the court on my behalf, since I would not be present, to "do whatever you want, anything whatsoever, since I would not be able to present evidence or enjoy constitutional rights, there was not need to go there anymore." Of course, I was not present at the April 9 court hearing to see actually what was presented. Basically, in that court, defendant lawyers are pretty much ignored anyway.

PR BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Apr. 30, 1997. TRIBUNAL EXAMINADOR DE MEDICOS, Dept. of Salud (Health), Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. RESOLUCION 97-26 (6 pages) about my complaint about Dr. Midgel Vazquez Davis. I was not informed, as requested, about the April 4 hearing of the Tribunal and thus could not present evidence to support the facts presented in my complaint. The Tribunal stated that Drs. Vazquez Davis and Nilda Keene were interviewed on April 4 and denied all aspects of the complaint. This was the evidence used by the Tribunal to set aside my complaint. Thus, it appears that all the physician has to say is something like, "I don't know about it and I didn't do it," and that is enough for the Board of Medical Examiners in Puerto Rico. Evidence to the contrary is apparently "inadmissible", as least if your name is Keene. Notice that this Board appears to be an official part of the government of Puerto Rico.

July 27, 1997. Letter from Vargas & Ramirez about mailing of court documents to me.

Aug. 1, 1997. Letter "TO GRACE AND JIMMY WITH LOVE FROM DADDY" (4 pages). Although I had been sending frequent letters, I never received a reply to, or even an acknowledgement of, anything I sent. From what I could gather, I assumed the children might now be more developed cognitively and I could try to explain some things to them as a father tends to do. :-)

Sep. 19, 1997. "Experts Can't Tell The Difference Between False and True Accounts Of Children, Cornell Study Shows," Science Daily. Article I printed out.

CALVERT SCHOOL

Sep. 19, 1997. As my parenthood was vanishing along with my children, correspondence with Calvert School, Baltimore, MD, was commenced, since the children had been enrolled for home schooling with Calvert.

To: Educational Counselors (edcounselors@calvertschool.org)
Subject: KIDNAPPED CHILDREN
Dear friends:

My two children were enrolled in the Calvert School at the time of their kidnapping by their biological mother (Parental Kidnapping) on Feb. 1, 1995. The Dept. of Justice of the U.S. suggests that victim parents contact schools as part of the process of location and recovery of the abducted children. I would like to inquire if my two children, Grace Josephine Keene or James Rogers Keene, are currently enrolled.

I do not want to trouble you unnecessarily, but I have attached the file PRESS01.WRI which gives a brief summary of the nature of the situation.

I am sorry to have to bring this unhappy situation to your attention. I look forward to your reply...

Sep. 22, 1997. Reply from Calvert School re my children:

From: Educational Counselors (edcounselors@calvertschool.org)
Subject: KIDNAPPED CHILDREN -Reply
Dr. Keene,
Thank you for your letter and the accompanying press release. If you will please fax us a copy of the custody papers or have your attorney fax us evidence, I will be happy to answer your request for information concerning the children. Our fax number is xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Mary-Louise Stenchly
Educational Counselor

I faxed this reply to Vargas & Ramirez, adding background and these comments:

... Now I am faxing to them (1) Writ of Habeas Corpus, (2) Notice and (3) Warrant -- all from the High Court here. What else? This has profound implications -- I am a father with no rights in the absence of any ruling whatsoever against me. I have no ruling from Guayama so I cannot act as if one exists. Please advise! Warm regards, Jim Keene

Sep. 23, 1997.

From: James Keene
To: Mary-Louise Stenchly (edcounselors@calvertschool.org)
Subject: ORDERS & WARRANT FOR ARREST
Dear Ms. Stenchly:
Thank you very much for your reply. I just faxed to you three documents: 1. the court order, 2. the notice that goes with it and 3. the warrant for arrest resulting from failure to respond after being duely served the documents 1 and 2 in both Puerto Rico and New Jersey...
...
Frankly, I am not sure what else to do. Obviously, this is frustrating to me to realize once again, that maybe the parent who is not a kidnapper, who is honest and who is law-abiding is given no preference in this world over the parent who is a kidnapper, chonic lier and law-breaker. ...
Anyway, I also have my birth certificate and those of the children showing I am their father.
... In the "Family Abduction" book published by the Department of Justice National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ..., it talks about the rights of parents regarding schooling and I think, certain obligations of schools to report to parents about their children in schools...
I know she cannot produce an U.S. court order, because none has been issued yet (this also is frustrating). Thus, from your point of view, if you want court orders, I am the only parent that has them.
And not only that, the Warrant for Arrest shows that Nilda will not obey court orders, anyway...
Again, I am learning. For example, an adult walks in with a child to enroll in school. Do you routinely require a court order? I think not. So why do you need one now? I don't know. I'll reread the section in the "Family Abduction" book. Thanks for listening!

Sep. 23, 1997. Email raising further questions to Ms. Stenchly, Calvert School. Subject: QUESTIONS ARISE

Sep. 23, 1997. Reply from Calvert School:

From: Mary-Louise Stenchly (edcounselors@calvertschool.org)
To: James Keene
Subject: QUESTIONS ARISE -Reply
Dr. Keene: Thank you for your e-mails and your faxes. It is not necessary for you to send any additional information. I have spoken with our principal concerning your request and I will give you the information I have from our pupil records concerning James and Grace.
In August of 1995, the children were enrolled in Fourth Grade and Sixth Grade. The courses were shipped to Patillas, PR and paid for with money orders. The children did not enroll in our Advisory Teaching Service.
In November 1996, the children enrolled in Fifth Grade and Seventh Grade, again without the Advisory Teaching Service. They were shipped to the same box number in Patillas, PR as had the courses in 1995. The courses in 1996 were paid for with money orders.
We have had no other communications or inquires since the enrollments in 1996. I am sorry that I have no current information to share with you.
Sincerely,
Mary-Louise Stenchly

According to the Calvert School web site at that time, the "Advisory Teaching Service" is:

strongly recommended. Only with ATS can Calvert School furnish transcripts of grades to other schools or verify completion of courses. Parents may use the tests provided if the student is not enrolled in ATS, but test answers are not supplied.
Calvert School strongly recommends ATS for the following reasons:
1. Your child's grades are recorded at a fully accredited institution.
2. Your home teaching is supported by our professional faculty.
3. An Advisory Teacher provides extra incentive. The child enjoys corresponding with his teacher and eagerly looks forward to receiving his progress reports.
...
5. ... The Advisory Teacher personalizes the student's relationship with the shool.

I quote so extensively above (actually the entire page is excellent and should be consulted) because it points out that my children have no educational transcript of grades and courses completed and no human contact concerning Calvert School. The theory is that kidnappers fear that children might reveal the truth to others, such as the Advisory Teacher. Also, let us not forget to find out who bought those money orders.

Sep. 24, 1997. Email raising further questions to Ms. Stenchly, Calvert School. Subject: NO ENROLLMENT

Sep. 25, 1997. Letter with update to Vargas & Ramirez.

Sep. 25, 1997. Letter to John T. Kubit, Attorney at Law, Medford Lakes, NJ, re "other avenues" concerning Willingboro police and Pedro Davis-Flores.

Sep. 29, 1997. Reply from Calvert School. Subject: NO ENROLLMENT -Reply

... After discussing your file with our principal, she wanted me to advise you that we allow students twelve months to complete a course. No request for an extension has been sent which means that Grace and James would not be considered currently enrolled as of November 1997.
We will notify you if a new enrollment for Grace and James is sent to us in the future.

Oct. 1, 1997. Email raising two further questions to Calvert School. Subject: ENROLL & NOTIFY. Notice how a victim parent wants to have every detail clarified. :-)

Oct. 2, 1997. Reply from Calvert School. Subject: ENROLL & NOTIFY -Reply. [Note: I want to thank the Calvert School now on this web page for its professionalism, responsiveness and patience re this series of inquiries.]

Oct. 28, 1997. Email from Calvert School. Subject: Enrollment

We have received an enrollment application and a money order for Sixth Grade without the Advisory Teaching Service for James. If you should decide to give us written permission to enroll James in order to avoid a delay in James receiving his educational materials, please let us know as soon as possible. In the meantime, the enrollment will not be processed while we consult our attorneys about your request to withhold the Calvert curriculum until you have given written permission or sent your own enrollment application and fees.

This notification from Calvert conforms to my request in the Sep. 4 email to them. The idea was to learn about the rights of a victim parent regarding schools.

Oct. 29, 1997. Email to Calvert School. Subject: NO PERMISSION stating in part "I will continue to withold permission for enrollment for both James and Grace." [Note: this was the "test" of how the system works.]

Nov. 10, 1997. Email from Calvert School. Subject: Sixth Grade Enrollment

We have been advised by our attorneys to process your son's enrollment for the Sixth Grade. Our policy is to allow enrollment by any parent or guardian of a child, and Mrs. Nilda Keene satisfies that requirement.
Because you have indicated that you feel your children's education would only be adequate with the use of the Advisory Teaching Service, you may want to suggest to Mrs. Keene that your children be enrolled in this service. It is possible for your to pay the enrollment fees for the Advisory Teaching Service. Having this service will allow you to monitor their progress during the year.
Please let us know if you have any questions.

Conclusion: Here is a point where a victim parent can appreciate the pain of vanishing children and parenthood concerning how a child is educated. Since the divorce had occurred, there was no "Mrs. Keene". So did Nilda Davis-Flores actually mislead Calvert School at this point in time? To be sure, all of the email from Calvert is clearly written and quite precise in each and every statement. In brief, the choice is easy: Calvert is the one that was honest. Incidentally, after the "test", I would have enrolled the children right back in Calvert.

IMAGINARY MONEY

Dec. 3, 1997. CIVIL NUM.: GDI 96-0047, in the Guayama court, PLANNILLA DE INFORMATION PERSONAL Y ECONOMICA, submitted by "Nilda M. Davis Flores", documents more funny and false information, this time about herself.

Could it get any more interesting? Yes, it can. There is lots more folks!

Copyright © 2002 James J. Keene

Please use Back on your browser to return to Missing Keene Kids.